“I'm Ed Mulgrave.
I'm the historian at the Aldridge Mansion,
and I believe it's haunted.
If you could just come take a look.“

There's one thing I'm firmly convinced of. And that's to stay clear of milestones in film history. A milestone is a film that isn't necessarily brilliant or an absolute masterpiece, but it made a particular impression on me. For instance "Evil Dead". For me that movie is a milestone because this was the first real horror I watched and I afterwards I wasn't haunted by traumatic nightmares. When I left the cinema hall after watching "Grease", I thought I was as tough and cool as Danny. "Back to the Future" remains a rock-solid classic for me. And "Ghostbusters" from 1984 was also such a milestone. It became a kind of a hype and it'll still be appreciated by film lovers after 50 years and broadcasted on television on Saturdaynight. I'm sure no one will remember this remake after lets say a year. It may safely be added to the list of unnecessary made and totally failed remakes in the history of motion pictures.

The highlight of this film is the appearance of the original Ghostbusters actors: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and a bust of Harold Ramis (who unfortunately died in 2014). And the funniest thing is that Murray plays a skeptic who doesn't believe in the existence of ghosts. And strangely enough, Chris "Thor" Hemsworth was the funniest character from the new cast. Funny, the majority thinks the opposite about these two last facts. For the rest, this is simply a duplicate of the original film. The storyline is almost identical (with some minor adaptations). The biggest difference are the special effects. They look sophisticated and are very impressive compared to those of 32 years ago (quite obviously) and a Ghostbusters team that consists entirely of women. I don't have a problem with that. But nonetheless it's still not clear to me why they've chosen this option.

Maybe it's me or the fact that the nostalgic value of this film is very high. Perhaps the opinion about this film will be different if you're from a younger generation and you've never seen the first version. Sure, in that case it's still brand new and highly original. But someone like me who's part of an older generation and who has enjoyed the original film, just sees a duplicate, full of recycled ideas and reused objects, infused with not so humorous humor. Admit it, when you smile more about the fumbling of a hunk, who impersonated "Thor" once, this raises all kind of questions. Maybe it's because I have no affinity with the female so-called humorous actress Melissa McCarthy. I thought "The Heat" was horrible. And I pulled the plug on "Spy" after half an hour because I was bursting into tears rather than in laughter. Who you gonna call? Not these ghostbusters for sure ...

Nonetheless, it's admirable they persisted in making this reboot. You don't need to be a genius to realize that this version would be overshadowed by its predecessor and would never manage to beat it. And if you don't have a unique storyline and all kinds of objects from the first film are used again (the paranormal apparitions Slimer and the Marsh Mellow Man, the famous tune, their headquarter and the Ghostbusters vehicle), there's only one thing that remains : the interaction between the main characters and the humor. And even that was toe-curling bad and irritating. The humor used by Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd was so natural, genuin and ingenuous. What's demonstrated here is so plastic and as implausible as the ghostly entities that flood New York City. Well, I stand by my first statement. Milestones are untouchable.